In recent online discussions, several readers raised thoughtful questions about what defines a scientist and what truly qualifies as science. The conversation touched on topics such as bioelectrochemistry, molecular biology, virology, and the role of chemistry in understanding living systems. The discussion revealed a recurring confusion — that biology and medicine are often mistaken for sciences, when in fact they depend entirely on the principles of chemistry and physics.

Defining a Scientist

A scientist is one who studies physics, chemistry, and mathematics in depth — the foundational disciplines that explain nature and its operations. These subjects deal with matter, energy, and the laws that govern their behavior. Only through such rigorous and quantitative understanding can one explore the workings of nature in a truly scientific way.

(more…)

Thanks for asking my opinion on the topic of autism (link). By education, training, and expertise, I consider myself a scientist — more precisely, a chemist. Chemistry, among all the sciences, is the discipline that deals with the study of natural substances and their functions, including those within the human body. From this fundamental and scientific perspective, chemistry provides the most authentic and authoritative view of how the body functions — and how it malfunctions.

Understanding the human body through chemistry is not simple, but it is the most direct and logical approach to exploring health and disease. The body is an extraordinarily complex chemical machine, yet at its physical level, it operates through remarkably simple and predictable chemical principles. The major components of the body — carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, calcium, and trace elements like iron (in numerous combinations, called molecules) — behave and react just as they do outside the body, following the same laws of chemistry.

The Loss of Chemistry in Medicine

The first step toward understanding illness should always be the study of the body’s chemistry. Unfortunately, over the past five to six decades, the science of medicine has been gradually taken over by medical and pharmaceutical professionals who speak the language of chemistry but are not trained in it. They use chemical terminology, draw chemical formulas, and claim to conduct “scientific” research — yet very few of them have even the basic understanding of what chemistry actually represents.

(more…)

There has been much talk about a recently “discovered” study that claims to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children, as summarized here (the article). The original study may be found here (link).

Based on a survey or so-called epidemiological analysis, it reportedly found that vaccination appears to harm vaccinated children. The data presented indeed suggest this outcome. Logically, there is no reason to continue vaccination programs. The conclusion is self-evident.

However, upon closer reading, one finds manipulation and misleading language throughout the report. The authors describe the study’s “scientifical robustness,” yet there is no science in it in the true sense of the word. Science means experimental work — controlled, measurable, and reproducible — not the simple collection of questionnaire data. At best, this is an observational social survey. The first author of the study, Lois Lamerato, Ph.D., holds a degree in sociology.

(more…)

Why real expertise matters more than borrowed authority

The criticism of science or scientists should not target everyone with a title or degree, but only those who misuse such titles to claim expertise they do not possess. The problem lies not in credentials themselves, but in the false representation of knowledge.

Actual scientists and genuine experts deserve respect. They are the ones who can help resolve the confusion created by self-proclaimed authorities who merely hold positions without understanding. It is essential to separate the pretenders from the professionals — the former seek recognition and lucrative compensation, the latter pursue knowledge and truth.

Now everyone is a science expert or scientist — except the actual scientist.

(more…)

When asked, “What recent scientific discovery has fascinated you?“ my thoughts turn to the curious case of ivermectin and cancer — two seemingly unrelated entities now being linked in medical discussions (link).

As the article noted, “Ivermectin, widely known for treating parasitic infections…“ — and indeed, that is an established fact. Ivermectin was developed and prescribed as an antiparasitic drug. So how, suddenly, has it become associated with treating “cancer”? Could it be that what is being diagnosed as cancer might, in fact, be a misidentified parasitic or microbial illness?

Modern medicine has a long history of misdiagnosis — and even of creating diseases and treatments out of nothing. Virus-based illnesses provide a glaring example. There is no valid scientific evidence that viruses, as defined by medicine, actually exist; therefore, the so-called “viral diseases” cannot exist either. Yet, drugs and vaccines have been developed to treat these imaginary or mischaracterized conditions, from AIDS to COVID-19.

(more…)

This perspective may be both interesting and disturbing from the standpoint of a scientist and student of science. Dr. Hazan claims to have been involved in science for an extended period (link). Yet her training is in medicine, and her work centers on clinical practice and studies, which she equates with science. But how does conducting clinical trials or working with bacteria suddenly make one a scientific expert—or a scientist? At best, such activities fall under applied biology and observational practice. Unfortunately, many people, including physicians, wrongly assume this qualifies them to call themselves scientists.

The most glaring flaw in her claims is the belief in viruses and her assertion that  “[her lab] was the first lab to document the entire sequence of the virus.” Scientifically, this is impossible without first isolating the virus itself. To illustrate: if one wishes to prove that sugarcane contains sugar, the process begins with obtaining authentic sugarcane, extracting and isolating the sugar, and characterizing it using well-established chemical methods. Only then can one confirm the presence of sugar in sugarcane. Without authentic sugarcane, any claim of “finding sugar” in it is nonsense. Repeating such claims in scientific language, or publishing them in medical journals, does not make them science.

The harsh truth is that medical experts are not doing science, nor are they scientists. They fail to grasp such analogies because they have never studied science rigorously, nor learned its proper research techniques and methods. Their false claims stem directly from this lack of education. The same misplaced authority of medicine—fundamentally non-scientific training—brought us the so-called fake pandemic, built on the illusion of a virus that never existed to begin with.

Therefore, my request to medical professionals is simple: please refrain from making false claims about “science.” You do not have the credentials, and an M.D. degree has no basis in science. It is essentially a non-science, undergraduate-level qualification in prescribing medicines and following diagnostic procedures, without genuine research. Presenting this as “science” is misleading, untrue, and potentially dangerous. The general public should be aware of the false claims of science.

False Priests of Science (link)  
A Simple And Direct Question RFK Jr Needs To Ask – A Suggestion (link)

Question asked: “…But how come there are electron microscope photos of them [viruses]?”

Top: If the virus had truly been isolated, the photograph would resemble this.

Bottom: Electron micrographs of calcium carbonate crystals/particles (Source: Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients, edited by A.H. Kibbe).

They aren’t. What is shown in those images is not an isolated virus but a mass of cell culture debris — gunk, frankly, the microscopic equivalent of a toilet flush. After the photo is taken, the debris is simply labeled “virus.” If it were truly a sample of an isolated virus, the image would show only viral particles, consistently and uniformly, just as electron micrographs of calcium carbonate show actual particles or crystals: every particle in the photo is calcium carbonate, taken from an isolated and purified sample.

People — including medical professionals — are fooled by “virus” images because they lack training in the science of isolation, preparation, and imaging. They do not understand how particles or their contents must be purified before they can be meaningfully photographed (even with an electron microscope). Too embarrassed to admit their ignorance, they instead are shouting louder and louder: “Here is the virus! Here is the virus!” But there is no virus. It is all fake and false.

The emperor has no clothes. All it will take is one honest observer to point out the obvious; then the crowd will see what was there (or not there) all along. Medical experts are not scientists — they are storytellers, and the story they have told is a tragic fiction.

It is essential to note that the term “study,” as used here (quote) and throughout much of the medical literature, most often refers to an observational survey rather than a valid scientific study. The same applies to the term “research” in medicine—what is called “medical research” is frequently nothing more than a survey, sometimes with statistical analysis added, but still not scientific research in the true sense.

Actual scientific research requires several non-negotiable elements:

  • Defined and measurable inputs.
  • A controlled test object (humans, animals, or samples), placed in a controlled environment, independent of confounding factors.
  • Clearly defined outputs that can be measured using validated surrogate markers that can serve as substitutes for direct measurement.
  • Reproducibility, so that independent investigators can obtain the same results under the same conditions.

These are not special requirements unique to medicine—they are the basic principles of all scientific investigation.

Because medical education does not teach or train physicians in these principles, they often describe their practices as “science” even when they do not meet these standards. As a result, much of what passes for medical literature is, in fact, false science—opinion and observation presented as evidence.

It is also critical to note that the concept of “cancer” often falls into this same category of survey-based and observational science. Much like “viruses,” cancer diagnosis is mostly image-based, not grounded in rigorous, quantitative, analytical science. Diagnosis and treatment decisions are therefore largely subjective, not based on validated, reproducible measurements. Extreme caution should be exercised, as the potential for misdiagnosis and overtreatment is very high.

Therefore, most—if not all—of the medical literature must be regarded as scientifically suspect. If judged by the same standards applied in other fields, much of it would likely need to be retracted or withdrawn.

An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)
Cancer or Misdiagnosis? An Uncomfortable Truth (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

“The greatest spreader of misinformation during the pandemic was the United States government.”
“And that is the weaponization of medical research itself.”
“And public-health officials were intellectually dishonest — they lied to the American people.”
Dr. Martin Makary (FDA Commissioner, link)

So why wasn’t this exposed earlier? Because it was buried inside the medical profession and shielded by the label “medical science” — a claim that protected the system from scrutiny. Criticism was silenced and independent checks were blocked. Meanwhile, today’s experts blame their predecessors while promoting the same “medical science.” The result: bogus diagnoses and fraudulent treatments will continue.

The solution is clear and urgent. Stop treating a corrupt “medical science” as an unquestionable truth. Let physicians use their judgment to guide patient care (writing prescriptions), rather than enforcing one-size-fits-all policies from centralized authorities. End all work masquerading as “medical science/research.” Treat medicines as chemical products that must be manufactured, tested, and regulated transparently by accountable chemical manufacturers — not hidden behind professional privilege or the false authority of so-called “pharmaceutical science.”


Do FDA and USP lie? Of course, all the time! (link)
An M.D. degree is not a science degree! (link)
Claims of vaccines’ relevancy and efficacy – a big fat lie! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
A Simple And Direct Question RFK Jr Needs To Ask – A Suggestion (link)
Quackery in White Coats (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Critical Review of Medical Authority and Scientific Legitimacy (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)
What is science, and who are scientists? (link)
My training and expertise – people ask! (link)

COVID and vaccines – ask and listen (link)
Vaccines and the COVID virus (link)
Claims of vaccines’ relevancy and efficacy – a big fat lie! (link)
The science behind COVID and vaccines! (link)
A Simple And Direct Question RFK Jr Needs To Ask – A Suggestion (link)
Quackery in White Coats (link)
Chemistry, Not Medicine, Defines Science (link)
Critical Review of Medical Authority and Scientific Legitimacy (link)
Questioning Medical Authority: Show Your Science Credentials (link)